Gun-grabbers don’t know what they really want, so nothing will satisfy them. Mandatory background checks at gun shows would be the most I would offer them, since that’s already the case at most gun shows already, even if the antis don’t know it.

I have emailed Toomey twice including once today on the specific reasons why I oppose the unviversal background check law. I also wrote to my two Senators (hopeless Democrat political hacks) and four other Senators (two from Alaska, McCain, and Backus)

Please feel free to copy or use any of the following in your communications with your Senators:

Dear Senator;

I oppose the Universal Background Check law proposed by Chuck Schumer. It is nonsense and not common sense. It will do much more harm than good.

First, S374, the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013 creates an impossible firearms theft reporting requirements. Section 203 requires that within 24 hours of the theft or loss of a firearm that it be reported to both local police and the US Attorney Generals office. This is wrong; it should be the lesser of 3 business days or 6 calendar days. There are many 3-day weekends where holidays fall on Monday. There is also the Thanksgiving weekend which includes Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, or 4 calendar days. Most police department business offices and the Attorney Generals offices are closed on weekends and holiday weekends. Therefore, there will be times when a firearm is stolen and it will be physically impossible to report the firearm as stolen within 24 hours. Furthermore, many responsible firearms owners keep serial numbers of their firearms in bank safety deposit boxes, which are often not accessible during weekends or holiday weekends. Without serial numbers, it will be impossible to adequately and accurately report lost or stolen firearms.

Furthermore, Section 202 on firearms transfers is hopelessly flawed and is utter nonsense in its current form. My first example is the exemptions to the transfer requirement are not nearly broad enough. For example, domestic partners, nieces, nephews, step-sons, step-daughters, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, etc. should all be included within the bona fide exemption list.

Another failing of Section 202 is that it does not exempt active duty military or reserve military about to be deployed overseas from the exemption requirement on transferring their personal firearms to another friend or family member. The US military does not allow active military to take firearms with them and so the military personnel must either sell or find a place where their self defense or hunting firearms can be stored prior to deployment.

Another serious lack of exemption is that ignorance of how common carriers work. For example, if I were to go hunting in say Alaska, I would call ahead and bring my hunting rifle and/or handgun in an unloaded condition in a locked case to the airline counter at the airport. There a representative of the airline would examine the firearm to make sure it was unloaded and there was no ammunition with it, and that it was in a locked case. They would then accept it, take possession, and put it into checked luggage so when I arrived in Alaska, I could claim it at the airport and proceed to my hunt. Unfortunately, the airline representative, baggage handlers and I would all be guilty of multiple illegal firearm transfers. The same would be true if I took other modes of transportation, whether it was an Alaska State Ferry, bus, train, or many other forms of transportation.

Now another flaw within Section 202 is that the temporary transfer associated with a lawful hunting or sporting purpose is too narrowly defined, as it limits it to (1) incorporated shooting ranges, (2) state agency or non-profit shooting competitions, or (3) while hunting or trapping. This means that if I want to provide or attend firearms safety training at an office or non-shooting range facility, attend a for-profit concealed carry license training course required by some states, I and others would likely be guilty of a violating this law. Many people sight in firearms at gravel pits, public or private property with safe backstops that are not organized shooting ranges and so those people would potentially be guilty of illegal firearms transfers if they let others use a weapon prior to a valid hunt.

Now lets look at another unintended consequence of this proposed law. That is the federal definition of a transfer. After the federal law is passed, states will likely need to pass similar enabling legislation. Many states have specific requirements regarding the transfer of firearms, including waiting periods, need for licenses, and other restrictions. So in theory, these other requirements, would trigger the moment a  a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or consignment, or other disposition occurs.

Still another flaw with S374 is that it will impose a transfer and background check fee on each firearm transferred, even when not required. Lets hypothesize that I want to sell four firearms (a revolver, a 22 pistol, a 22 rifle, and a hunting rifle) to a co-worker or neighbor that know to not be a prohibited person, because he has a concealed carry license. I can understand doing a background check on the sale to the neighbor once, but not four times. The person is either prohibited or not prohibited from receiving the firearms and multiple checks for each firearm is really meaningless, unless there is something about registering each serial number of each firearm.

While brings me to the final point of objection. That final point is the point that has been raised by the ACLU and other organizations on the potential privacy issue violations associated with this proposed law. A national gun registry is a bad idea, one that Canada found to be an incredible financial black hole. Canadas national gun registry became so expensive they finally had to abandon it. With Sequester and the need for budget priorities, now is not the time to add a huge financial tracking system of firearms owners, that money would be better spent on education, mental health programs, and anti-gang programs.

As such, when all is said and done, S374 is a very bad law and hopelessly flawed. Please vote against it. It is hardly common sense. S374 is utter and complete nonsense.

Thank you.

21 posted on 04/09/2013 1:22:14 PM PDT by Robert357
(D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)